Proactively “From the Sea”; leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case to synergize a consistent design in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.

Monday, December 20, 2010

Since the start of this blog in 2004, the hate showed towards the military at many of our top-tier institutions - a byproduct of their hate of the USA by "opinion makers" who mau-mau'd everyone else - of higher learning in the form of banning ROTC as been a recurring topic.

To be blunt and show a some ankle - those are my people as well as the military, and I consider it a disgrace that those who this nation gave so much intentionally shun and shame the people and organizations that make it all possible.

The military's stand against homosexuals openly serving was the last barricade left. That is gone, so they are back at where they started - ban ROTC because they hate the military and their nation.

Well - that may no longer work. The Weekly Standard has a couple of good items out on the topic.

Now that the lame duck Democratic Congress has repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), the new Congress will have to see to it that the Obama administration manages the implementation of repeal responsibly, and that the concerns of military leaders and troops are taken seriously. But over the next two years Congress can do something else. It can take an interest in ensuring that discrimination against ROTC on college campuses ends.

Though ROTC was kicked off campuses like Harvard, Yale and Columbia before gays in the military was ever an issue, DADT became the excuse offered by those universities in recent years for continuing to discriminate against ROTC. The excuse is gone. One trusts the presidents and trustees of colleges that have been keeping ROTC at arm's length, allegedly because of DADT, will move posthaste to ensure a hearty welcome and full equality for ROTC at their universities. One would expect that patriotic alumni of those universities would insist on quick action. One would hope that prominent individuals, like Yale alum Joe Lieberman, who played so crucial a role in ending DADT, would lose no time in writing president Richard Levin to urge the re-installing of ROTC at Yale, that Crimson alums like Chuck Schumer will be in touch with Harvard president Drew Faust, and that Columbia graduate Barack Obama will weigh in with Fair Columbia's Lee Bollinger.

But the Republican House will also have a role here. It can make its views known to the leaders of universities that receive federal funds; it can enforce the existing Solomon Amendment; it may perhaps want to consider new legislation if universities remain obdurate.

The ROTC programs have been absent from a number of Ivy League and other leading campuses since the Vietnam War, and many schools subsequently linked programs' return to open service for gays and lesbians. The vote, said Columbia University President Lee Bollinger, provides "the opportunity for a new era in the relationship between universities and our military services."

"This is an historic development for a nation dedicated to fulfilling its core principle of equal rights. It also effectively ends what has been a vexing problem for higher education, including at Columbia -- given our desire to be open to our military, but not wanting to violate our own core principle against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation," he said in a statement through a spokesman.

Harvard University President Drew Faust today signaled that she would move to restore ROTC to the campus.

"Because of today's action by the Senate, gay and lesbian Americans will now also have the right to pursue this honorable calling, and we as a nation will have the benefit of their service," she said in a statement through a spokesman. "I look forward to pursuing discussions with military officials and others to achieve Harvard's full and formal recognition of ROTC."

A spokesman for Yale University also suggested that change may be coming soon.

"We are aware of the vote and have plans in consideration," said Yale spokesman Thomas Mattia in an email.

Do we really want the “top tier” collage graduates to join the military. The same top tier people were in charge of Wall Street and the Big banks when they drove the economy off a cliff while parachuting to safety their bonuses. Sounds like the kind of people who come up with a stupid plan, then demand medals when others save their plans from disaster.

As I posted on an earlier thread, from my own experience around "top tier" colleges the issue of DADT was not just a smokescreen, but was indeed a real impediment. That does not mean there will be zero opposition to bringing back ROTC, and no doubt some campuses will say no. In many places, though, enough opposition will go away that what is left won't be enough to prevent the return of ROTC. My own experience is that is especially true for younger faculty, those in their late 20s thru early 40s. They are less likely to be generically anti-military than the Boomers, and more likely to care a lot about gay rights.

I think you'll see an even faster move by law schools to cooperate with the JAG corps once the policy change is implemented. That wasn't an issue of a wholesale program, just whether the military would get access to the career planning office, career fairs, etc. Given how terrible the market is for new law grads I think you'll see plenty of student interest.

Any university that refuses to do "its part" during a time of global warfare is beyond justification / explanation. As real as it may be, prof, it is disingenuine. I am disgusted by the Ivy League and its self-centered liberal puke mantra. We won Iraq without them, we'll win Afghanistan without them, so why do we need them? As part of "Diversity?" Methinks not. A larger collection of white, rich, self-important blowhards has never been assembled, even in the JCS! Neigh, we need not the Ivy League to win wars. Keep your grubby mitts off of our Cadets and Midshipmen, thank you very much!

Law schools, with few exceptions, tend to be even more liberal than undergraduate institutions. And some law school faculty members are true military haters. As a result, I don't expect many law schools to change their stripes overnight. If such law schools are to change, their respective deans may have to drag them back to reality kicking and screaming.

On the other hand, the job market for law school students is so bad that I do expect some perceptible shift from them.

Overall, an injection of talent from top-tier schools, almost necessarily including many more liberal backgrounds, should benefit both the military and society in general. After all, there was a time when graduates of the top-tier schools provided leadership for all segments of our society, particularly the military. Perhaps the repeal of DADT can stimulate a return to those Halcyon days?

<p><span><span>Now then.</span></span></p><p><span><span>Do we really want students who attend “top tier” schools to join the military? Hell yes, we do. <span> </span></span></span></p><p><span> </span></p><p><span><span>Wall street, Big banks, that “kind of people” – what does this have to do with ROTC? I can find that same entitlement infection at my local community college and state school. <span> </span>ROTC is entered into willingly, with clear expectations of the service requirements at the back end, and serious penalties for withdrawal. <span> </span></span></span></p><p><span> </span></p><p><span><span>A “top tier” education is not a shameful badge in military circles, nor should it be something to fear. One does not learn a secret liberal handshake upon matriculating. An ex-BF of mine who was ROTC at one of those Ivies with an active unit served 2 tours in Iraq. My brilliant BIL who attended “top tier” is now leading research into anti-IED technology. We need those guts, those brains, those engineers especially.<span> </span>To dismiss those students who attend some of our best schools as somehow unfit for service based on the fact that they got in only exacerbates the dangerous camo-vs-mortarboard aspect of the civilian-military divide, and those “top tier” ROTC cadets who have gone on to honorably execute their obligations should feel rightfully pissed if they read your post.</span></span></p><p><span> </span></p><p><span><span>Please mind that broad brush. That color doesn’t work for me.</span></span></p>

Last time I looked, Princeton was Air Force ROTC only and the cadets had to travel to the Rutgers campus in order to attend ROTC lab periods--a hard road to hoe.

Technically, Harvard and Tufts have at least Navy ROTC in the form of a crosstown agreement with the Navy ROTC Unit at MIT. Once again, however, that's a significant additional burden on the midshipmen.

At one point, Harvey Mudd College (if you don't know about them, you should) had a similar crosstown agreement with USC, but travel from Claremont to downtown Los Angeles and back proved too difficult.

The Navy ROTC Unit at MIT is off campus, but only by 100 feet or so. So not all off campus is created equal.

The bottom line is that while off campus is possible, it can be almost impossible, depending on the exact circumstances. For example, if the ROTC Unit runs labs or PT in the early morning (e.g., 0600) or late afternoon (e.g., 1600) so as not to conflict with other classes, that's hard enough if it's on campus. If you've got to travel a significant distance there and back, it can be practically impossible.

Absolutely, QSPN, I get it - off campus does not = an easy row to hoe. Getting ROTC back into the 3 ivies that don't even have it on their books should run in parallel with getting space on-campus for those that do. And I know Harvey Mudd...

save your indignation. the comment applied to those universities that are not allowing ROTC and are the most liberal to boot. The military is not an exercise in liberal discourse. There is a right, a wrong, and precious little gray area. Liberal Indignified University cannot square that in their self-described enormously powered brains.

Ergo, anyone who is a result of that four year education stands a better chance than not of not turning out to be a General Patton, but a Senator John Kerry. No thanks.

save your indignation. the comment applied to those universities that are not allowing ROTC and are the most liberal to boot. The military is not an exercise in liberal discourse. There is a right, a wrong, and precious little gray area. Liberal Indignified University cannot square that in their self-described enormously powered brains.

Ergo, anyone who is a result of that four year education stands a better chance than not of not turning out to be a General Patton, but a Senator John Kerry. No thanks.

The next phase of this battle will be "We're willing to accept an ROTC unit as long as its courses meet the high standards of (insert the name of your favorite Ivy here) and their instructors are qualified to teach here". It was part of the argument against ROTC in the '60s/'70s and I don't doubt it will recur in the upcoming debate. Even in the schools that retained ROTC programs the instruction and the university's process for accepting instructors was changed. None of my enlisted personnel were "officially" permitted to teach and the billets for a senior QM, MM, and GMG had long since disappeared. Although the process was pretty much "proforma", my nomination as PNS went before the faculty senate and the Board of Regents, but we were a public institution and the government had the "land grant college hammer" on its side. Still, unlike my pre-Vietnam predecessors, I was required to hold a Masters Degree and to present an example of "scholarly writing" prior to being approved.

Like milprof, I suspect that the Ivy League law schools, despite their liberal leanings, will come around more easily because we're only asking to recruit there...not to set up a training program. Establishing an ROTC unit will be a harder task.

"I am disgusted by the Ivy League" - which encompasses all eight institutions. My comments were not directed at you, though, but rather the much broader generalization that all "top tier" students are not fit for military service as they are clearly unscrupulous and unethical b@stards waiting for their diploma so they can foreclose on your home and throw the economy in the shitter.

We may not need the Ivy League to win wars, but note not all Ivy Leaguers keep Karl Marx under their pillow, throw paint at recruiting stations, etc. And I sincerely hope that ROTC comes soon to Yale, Harvard, and Columbia, and that the others can get back on campus.

I think returning the ROTC is a great idea. It is good for both sides of the civil-military divide to have more exposure to the other. Like it or not (I don't) the civilan leadership in this country pulls a lot from elite universities. That civilian leadership needs a lot more exposure to the military.

The entire DADT repeal was irresponsible. If the concerns of the troops had figured into it, DADT would have been left alone, and the hammer would have been brought down on the colleges that mistreat ROTC.

Grotopotamus -Thanks for bringing facts before directing fire. Two points:1) At all of the Ivys, there is some form of ROTC (Ar, AF, N) available to the student that is willing to stretch.- And at several, there are full scale units on Campus: Penn, Cornell, Princeton (Army only).2) The services have chosen various forms of consolidation and combination that limit the options at many of the schools.- Cross-town combinations are a common necessity (see Penn, Harvard) where density alllows.- Some states / areas are entirely unserved by various service branches, and some areas have no units within miles.- There is no Navy ROTC in the states of CT (Yale) or RI (Brown), despite a big sub presence in Groton .- Dartmouth is way way up in the woods (as you noted); they can get Army ROTC at Norwich, with a long drive.- Columbia: There is just not much military presence in NYC. Nothing much at NYU or CUNY to support Columbia.</span>

Harvard's president has just committed to press for the full return of ROTC there. But if the srvices follow form, they'll rent a room at Harvard, keep their bases at MIT for the central location.Yale has no hope of local ROTC presence unless Army steps it up in southern CT. And Navy has shown no interest in the entire state of CT - not even at UConn. Yale has long made it clear that they support ROTC - at least in published statements on the university web site.Brown - even if they threw open their arms - is too small a school in too small a state to ever get much than a circuit-rider Army presence. Forget AF and N.Columbia, notorious from the 1960s demonstrations: Even if they threw open their arms - and their President, formerly a U Mich, has made positive noises - there is no military education infrastructure in NYC. Until some part of the military commits resources to securing officer candidates from the largest city in the US, there will be no meaningful presence at Columbia, or CUNY, or NYU, or at many of the many, many other schools in NYC.Beyond the Ivys:- Duke - they share cross-town units with UNC, which makes for interesting drills during hoops season.- Stanford - isolated in a very high cost area, it is possible to travel (a long, long way) to get at least Ar and N ROTC.

When you get on the ground and look at specifics, there are as many blocks posed by the services as those posed by the various Universities. If the SECDEF wants to get on more campuses, he has got to put some more feet on the ground to get there. And budgets won't support it anytime soon.</span>

The New York City angle is very interesting because recruiters often claim that they do extremely well in the City (and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of those claims). If true, perhaps the powers that be in the Big Apple (and the State of New York) will realize the benefits of serving their constituents by keeping them at home for a college experience funded by the Federal government.

There are many great schools in NYC and throughout the state [shout out to Cooper Union, Cornell, and Binghampton University (via Tony Kornheiser)], although some are over-the-top liberal (e.g., Columbia and NYU). However, the mixing of liberals, middle of the roaders (an often-forgotten group that forms a substantial portion of our population), and conservatives is good for the military and society overall. I would think that should be particularly true in an eclectic and cosmoplitan society such as NYC.

CT, You're correct that the situation is a bit more complex than it seems on the surface and the services have some culpability in the matter as well. However, let me throw a few more variables into the mix regarding NROTC units (I can't speak to the other services). First, having NROTC units in as many areas of the country as possible outweighs the advantages of having naval bases or units nearby. There's essentially no naval presence in Oregon, Idaho, or Minnesota (or Northern California for than matter) but there are NROTC units in each of those states. Secondly, since the mid-'90s when CNET started allocating scholarship students to individual schools the size of the student body at a given school became less important. Because scholarship students make up the majority of a midshipman battalion, if the Navy wants a unit at a given school, they'll provide the students. Thus Yale and Brown, both of which had NROTC battalions once upon a time, are as likely candidates as anyplace else.

The issue, as you imply, is cost but it's more along the line of cost per graduate weighed against the likelihood that the grad will stay in the service for initial obligation plus two years. Frankly, the Ivies didn't have a very good track record in that regard and this was one of the reasons that the Navy didn't push to reopen a unit there.

Should I go on?Did we win Iraq with them or in spite of them?Are they part of "A larger collection of white, rich, self-important blowhards has never been assembled, even in the JCS!". Have you read General Patraeus' article "Beyond the Cloister," The American Interest Magazine"?

Disclaimer: I am a NROTC guy from a public university (UW), I have never attended an Ivy League school.

You could say the same over about 90% of the current and incoming Congressional Critters (both sides of the aisles). Rich, self-important blowhards who have never even looked at military service. So what is your point?

As to the UW not being an Ivy League. You are correct they aren't an Ivy League, but gosh darn if they don't try to act it via either thier ASB or thier professors.

Now we have this a$$ clown opining. Peace studies indeed. It makes me want to punch him on the nose for his naivete, brain washing and overall stupidity. The best thing the devil did was make people think he didn't exist. There IS evil out there and peace studies, devisive diversity silliness will not push it away.